do you agree, sir, with the obama administration that chemical weapons are a red line and should be a red line? >> they are a perfectly reasonable red line, but they are only a red line if they are used. as of now there's no reporting, no information to the effect that they are being used against anyone, and it's hard to envisage how they could be used because if the resistance is scattered, sporadic, then how can you employ these weapons? it's not very likely to me, at least, that the regime will start poisoning itself, particularly in dmamascus which is a big city and which could be the object, but that would make absolutely no sense. >> is it simply too dangerous, do you think, for the u.s. to get involved in the region? i mean, you have iran, iraq, israel. they are all right there. >> i think the more serious issue which goes beyond the slightly hysterical hype is what sort of regime can be created in syria that is stable, and how do we avoid such fragmentation that the conflict in syria spills over into jordan and lebanon and conceivably also activates conflicts in iraq. this is